PCM / Moorside Legal are taking me to Small Claims Court

FluffySocks25

@Coupon-mad, link in third paragraph of template. hharry100 defence case. 
I have amended. Thank you

Parking Control Management UK

(Claimant)

 

- and –

NAME

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

_________________

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC')

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR

ADD CEL VS CHAN CASE HERE

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

5. The Defendant formally contests and deny the allegation and the parking charge notice issued by the Claimant on the grounds that the evidence provided is inaccurate, misleading and does not accurately reflect the circumstances at the time.

6. The Defendant parked in this bay for school runs without issue for two years prior, following verbal permission from an attendant who represents the Claimant as an employee. The attendant would patrol the area to ensure the 20-minute grace did not lapse. Without notice to parents or the school, the parking rules changed, and the Defendant was issued an invoice by a different attendant representing the firm. Potential Legal Standing – Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

7. The Defendant had parked for 4 minutes or less. The short stay was less than any grace period, a grace period that the Defendant believed to be permissible.

8. The photograph of the Defendants vehicle was taken on DATE AND TIME while the photograph of the parking sign was taken at TIME, NUMBER minutes later. The sign shown in the photograph is not located where the Defendants vehicle was parked nor are the T&Cs the same for that bay. Potential Legal Standing – Misrepresentation (Misrepresentation Act 1967) and Data Protection and Evidentiary Standards.

9.        ADD REST OF TEMPLATE FROM POINT 4 OF DEFENCE TEMPLATE

Coupon-mad

Now you need to remove ALL of paras 5 to 8 inclusive and instead just type a single paragraph denial of the vague points made in the actual POC.

Too much information!

The POC specifies none of what you have addressed ... so don't address it.

FluffySocks25

Thank you. @Coupon-mad. I have shortened and pulled into one paragraph. 

5. The Defendant formally contests the parking charge notice / POC. The Defendant parked in the bay for for two years for school runs based on verbal permission from a Claimant's employee. The rules were changed without notice, leading to an invoice issued after the Defendant parked for less than 4 minutes—well within the assumed grace period. Legal grounds include Promissory Estoppel, Misrepresentation, and breaches under the Data Protection Act and evidentiary standards.

FluffySocks25

Parking Control Management UK

(Claimant)

 

- and –

NAME

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

_________________

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC')

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR

ADD CEL VS CHAN CASE HERE

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

5. The Defendant formally contests the parking charge notice / POC. The Defendant parked in the bay for for two years for school runs based on verbal permission from a Claimant's employee. The rules were changed without notice, leading to an invoice issued after the Defendant parked for less than 4 minutes—well within the assumed grace period. Legal grounds include Promissory Estoppel, Misrepresentation, and breaches under the Data Protection Act and evidentiary standards

Coupon-mad

I think I would add:

The Defendant cannot even tell from the POC what they are said to have done wrong. The allocating Judge is respectfully invited to strike out the claim on that basis.

You could also add the Akande transcript and some words about it copied from another defence. It goes right under Chan. Two appeal judgments support your defence.

1505grandad

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

FluffySocks25

Thank you @Coupon-mad and @1505grandad Amendments are in bold.

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

(Claimant)

 

- and –

NAME

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

_________________

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC'). The Defendant cannot even tell from the POC what they are said to have done wrong. The allocating Judge is respectfully invited to strike out the claim on that basis.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority. 

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande would indicate the POC fails to comply with with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

ADD CEL VS CHAN CASE HERE

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim' (transcript below).

ADD CPMS vs AKANDE CASE HERE

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

5. The Defendant formally contests the parking charge notice / POC. The Defendant parked in the bay for for two years for school runs based on verbal permission from a Claimant's employee. The rules were changed without notice, leading to an invoice issued after the Defendant parked for less than 4 minutes—well within the assumed grace period. Legal grounds include Promissory Estoppel, Misrepresentation, and breaches under the Data Protection Act and evidentiary standards

REST OF THE TEMPLATED ADDED HERE

FluffySocks25

Reposting - noted a numbers typo

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

(Claimant)

 

- and –

NAME

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

_________________

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC'). The Defendant cannot even tell from the POC what they are said to have done wrong. The allocating Judge is respectfully invited to strike out the claim on that basis.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority. 

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande would indicate the POC fails to comply with with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

ADD CEL VS CHAN CASE HERE

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim' (transcript below).

ADD CPMS vs AKANDE CASE HERE

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

6. The Defendant formally contests the parking charge notice / POC. The Defendant parked in the bay for for two years for school runs based on verbal permission from a Claimant's employee. The rules were changed without notice, leading to an invoice issued after the Defendant parked for less than 4 minutes—well within the assumed grace period. Legal grounds include Promissory Estoppel, Misrepresentation, and breaches under the Data Protection Act and evidentiary standards

REST OF THE TEMPLATED ADDED HERE

Report

Coupon-mad

All good except this needs to say 'two':

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment 

FluffySocks25

Thank you @Coupon-mad. I will amend and email Claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk.

Once submitted, I will let the forum know